sknx

DEAR MR.VOLPENTESTA,

I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY YOUR MESSAGE POSTED WITH REGARD TO "Changes in Immigration Rules" POSTED ON 19OCT2001:

"Once given Royal Ascent (likely in November or December 2001) the implementation can be done in various stages. They are indeed aiming for spring 2002 but various people in the department have defined spring as anywhere between March and July. The last time it took nearly a year and a half to implement.

The minister seems serious about push hard and fast. Given the conditions, she is likely to get whatever she wants.

>>>***Applicants filed may have to worry if the department goes through with their plan to make the law retroactive. This would mean that anyone who had not been interviewed as yet could fall into new rules****<<<<

MR.COHEN SAYS THAT ANY APPLICATIONS WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEW RULE WILL NOT BE AFFECTED, THE LINK FOR IT IS: http://canadavisa.com/effect.htm

OR I AM MIGHT BE WRONG, I MAY NOT HAVE GOT THE CORRECT MESSAGE COULD YOU PLEASE CLARIFY THIS FOR ME.

REGARDS,
SKNX


The new model, in my opinion, was more generous. However, there is a lot of room for discretion and the passmark could be set quite easily. Higher mark, fewer success stories.

The aim is to make the process faster. There are many things that delay this, background checks are certainly one.

There is no occupational factor in the proposed model.

--
Good luck,

Berto Volpentesta, B.A. (Spec. Hons.), B.Ed."

David Cohen

Although the implementation of new Regulations in the past has traditionally not
been retroactive, there is recent discussion that the Immigration Department may
impose Bill C-11 retroactively. There will certainly be great opposition to such a
plan, however.

It would be the exception to common practice to impose the Regulations retroactively.

    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
[usenetquote2]> >>>***Applicants filed may have to worry if the department goes through with their[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >>>plan to make the law retroactive. This would mean that anyone who had not been[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >>>interviewed as yet could fall into new rules****<<<<[/usenetquote2]
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

________
CAMPBELL, COHEN - attorneys at law tel:514.937.9445 / fax:514.937.2618
[email protected] http://canadavisa.com

Online Community: http://canadavisa.com/community

natarajr

Does this mean that it is going to affect the people who have already submitted the application and still not had an interview

Andrew Miller

It doesn't mean anything yet, it is just a wishful thinking of CIC and majority of
senators oppose it, so we will have to wait and see what form of transitional
provisions will be approved by the Senate.

--

../..

Andrew Miller Immigration Consultant Vancouver, British Columbia email:
[email protected] (delete REMOVE and INVALID from the above address before
sending email)
________________________________

    >
    >
    >
    >

Berto Volpentesta

I along with the hordes of others certainly hope that wisdom saves the = day and the
sober second thought of the senate prevails.=20

However, it seemed upon review of the senate hearing that the senators = were not
concerned about it. In fact they agreed on the whole that many = laws were
retroactive. The senate seems focused on security and refugee = issues.

There will most certainly be challenges if such a plan were pushed = forward. So the
costs to the department would be great.

On the other hand, they must have anticipated such a response and have = weighed the
costs against some perceived benefit.

--=20 Good luck,

Berto Volpentesta, B.A. (Spec. Hons.), B.Ed. Member, OPIC Director, OPIC and
Education Committee Chairman

Sidhu & Volpentesta Inc. Serving people around the world since 1991

www.svcanada.com

    >
    >
the=20
    >
    >
    >
    >

    >
    >
    >
[usenetquote2]> > DEAR MR.VOLPENTESTA,[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >=20[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY YOUR MESSAGE POSTED WITH REGARD TO "Changes =[/usenetquote2]
in
[usenetquote2]> > Immigration Rules" POSTED ON 19OCT2001:[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >=20[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > "Once given Royal Ascent (likely in November or December 2001) the implementation[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > can be done in various stages. They are indeed aiming =[/usenetquote2]
for
[usenetquote2]> > spring 2002 but various people in the department have defined spring =[/usenetquote2]
as
[usenetquote2]> > anywhere between March and July. The last time it took nearly a year =[/usenetquote2]
and
[usenetquote2]> > a half to implement.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >=20[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > The minister seems serious about push hard and fast. Given the conditions, she is[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > likely to get whatever she wants.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >=20[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > >>>***Applicants filed may have to worry if the department goes =[/usenetquote2]
through
[usenetquote2]> > >>>with their plan to make the law retroactive. This would mean that anyone who[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > >>>had not been interviewed as yet could fall into new rules****<<<<[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >=20[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > MR.COHEN SAYS THAT ANY APPLICATIONS WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN =[/usenetquote2]
SUBMITTED
[usenetquote2]> > BEFORE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEW RULE WILL NOT BE AFFECTED, =[/usenetquote2]
THE
[usenetquote2]> > LINK FOR IT IS: http://canadavisa.com/effect.htm[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >=20[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > OR I AM MIGHT BE WRONG, I MAY NOT HAVE GOT THE CORRECT MESSAGE COULD =[/usenetquote2]
YOU
[usenetquote2]> > PLEASE CLARIFY THIS FOR ME.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >=20[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > REGARDS, SKNX[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >=20 20[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > The new model, in my opinion, was more generous. However, there is a =[/usenetquote2]
lot
[usenetquote2]> > of room for discretion and the passmark could be set quite easily. Higher mark,[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > fewer success stories.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >=20[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > The aim is to make the process faster. There are many things that =[/usenetquote2]
delay
[usenetquote2]> > this, background checks are certainly one.[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> >=20[/usenetquote2]
[usenetquote2]> > There is no occupational factor in the proposed model.[/usenetquote2]
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >

Goldfinger

There will most certainly be challenges if such a plan were pushed forward. So the
costs to the department would be great.

On the other hand, they must have anticipated such a response and have weighed the
costs against some perceived benefit.

__________________________________________________ __________________________
______

From a skilled immigrant point of view, it appears to me that most people will be
favorably affected by the new legislation. There is no occupational factor and if you
are University graduate, young and are fluent in at least one of the offical
languages, you should have no problem qualify. Of course, it all depends on how high
the set the pass mark to.

Berto Volpentesta

Exactly.

And, the pass mark could easily be adjusted higher or lower at any time.

--=20 Good luck,

Berto Volpentesta, B.A. (Spec. Hons.), B.Ed. Member, OPIC Director, OPIC and
Education Committee Chairman

Sidhu & Volpentesta Inc. Serving people around the world since 1991

www.svcanada.com

    >

    >
    >
forward.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
__________________________________________________ _______________________=
___
    >
    >
    >
people
    >
occupational
    >
least
    >
    >
    >